Obama? Yes, quite a lot is about race – including the over-heated response to his candidacy. He wrote a whole book about how his identity and personality is deeply tied to his racial identity. And there is plenty of evidence that it is still is. And I’m not placing a value judgement here.

But what we should do is be more willing to discuss it in a productive and informed manner. You don’t seem willing or able to do this.

And again, my offer to discuss the most recent and quite messianic statements of his wife still stands. Perhaps we can actually engage on substance one of these days shortly after you leave the conservative-bashing aside. (He referenced NRO! No need to engage Michelle’s quote! 1958! Communism! Too racial!)

And by the way, the extended NRO quote is designed to show my initial reading is correct. It’s all there is (ahem!) black and white…

It’s going to be a long 8 1/2 months……

Ladies and gentlemen– National Review, 1958 (sorry, I mean 2008).

http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama

And she didn’t write anything like he “must come from a Communist family.” You are being ridiculous.

Finally, if you want to actually deal with Mrs. Obama’s strange messianic statements, I’m game.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=9e3a08aa-ad84-46cf-8492-6aff289bca42

From the 8 minute mark:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

(via NRO the Campaign Spot)

Again, no thanks. Let’s be on the lookout for more Messianic undertones. I expect we will see more than a few.

Well, I think our disagreement on St Constantine actually helps shed some light on the disagreement over Obama. I think there is a consistent ethic come from the Enlightenment to squash hierarchies, and as such, to view any hierarchical system in suspicion. Moreover, when someone in politics is therefore raised for whatever reason, questions of “messianism” can easily creep up. I do think we will disagree with the role of St Constantine in caeseropapalism (the symphony really was much later). Indeed, if people really wanted to see where things changed, I would suggest it is Theodosius.

Anyway, what is interesting is that today I was looking over Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Old Covenant, in his discussion of the kings. That in the kings, there was always seen a reflection of “doxa” or “glory.” His mentioning of the story of Esther was telling here, and how even she “feinted” in the presence of the king. It really brought to light once again to me how much of our political rhetoric stems not from theological concerns but something else.

[Not to red herring you, but: and I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the title of "saint" given to Constantine as well. I think the Latin church retreated from this for good reason. There's more than a little secular messianism there in him. I would argue that it was politically convenient for the Byzantine Empire to adulate Constantine, since it progressively sought to usurp more and more control from the Church. I.e. It makes sense historically; a caesaropapist empire would not have heaped such praise upon Constantine if it didn't serve to bolster their claim. But I suppose we can agree to disagree here.]

Of course sainthood doesn’t guarantee wisdom. But I would say sainthood should be seen as proof against claims of “antichrist.” And I am looking at Constantine way beyond Eusebius. Indeed, so many only see him from Eusebius that they ignore the real Constantine.